[lit-ideas] Re: When Glory *Means* A Nice Knock-Down Argument: Grice vs. ...

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:42:46 EST

In a message dated 12/22/2009 5:59:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

It's  Wittgenstein who had a bogus PhD. with his senseless TLP. 
---- In one of his letters to Malcolm, cited online in the paper by T. P.  
Uschanov, Wittgenstein, who knew Toulmin, refers to Toulmin as "that man,  
GRICE. "The Uses of Argument" often fails
    to redeem the vulgar arguers.
TOULMIN. Vulgar arguers, who do you mean?
GRICE. Your father.
GRICE. He was from London, right? I bet he used double negatives and all  
TOULMIN. Your point?
GRICE. Consider the argumentative analysis, along your lines of
           "Everybody  loves my baby"
           "But my baby  don't love nobody but me"
       You repeatedly claim in your little  book that the "not" of the 
       arguers does not correspond to the " -  " of Principia Mathematica.
       If that were so, it would transpire,  in your logic that my baby
       loves _everybody_ but me.
GRICE. Plus, your account fails to distinguish a substitutional  account
      of quantification. In the non-substitutional  account, from the 
      or datum, to use your silly jargon,
Everybody loves my baby, but my  baby don't want nobody but me
       it surely follows, deductively, that  _I_ am my baby.
TOULMIN. How cum?
GRICE grabs some chalk and writes on the board:

Everybody loves my baby but my baby don't
       want nobody but me.
     Therefore, I am my baby
TOULMIN. I guess some _grounds_ are missing.
GRICE. Exactly. But surely you won't have vulgar arguers bringing in
    all the grounds for the silly things they say. You may  just as well
    bring in your grandmother.
    What your account fails to note is that is piece of  reasoning
    [points to the diagram] is not, at least not for most of  us, a 
    _complete_ piece of reasoning.
TOULMIN. And what _would_ complete it?
GRICE. Good question. Well, what completes things depends, notably,
    on various circumstances. A COMPLETE piece of reasoning  (or 
    "argument" if you prefer) would AT LEAST point out  that
    ONLY assuming a universal domain 
    of quantification for the quasi-logical constant,
    -- but not a substitutional one --
     IF everybody loves my baby, 
     AND _since_ my baby is _included_ in 
     the extension of 'everybody', we 
          my baby loves my  baby. 
TOULMIN. Isn't that what the song implicates (to use your hateful  phrase)?
GRICE. Yep. But that's not the end of the story. Appealing to one of  your
     sordid 'inference-warrants', 
     since my baby don't love nobody -- sic --
     but me, I must be my baby".
TOULMIN kisses him in the cheek. 
      Quod erat  demonstrandum!

JL Speranza

Other related posts: